Google Forces Schools to Use Their AI Tools By Holding Their Search Ransom: Is That So Bad Since Google Search Is Bad Anyway?

Google's decision to force all schools to use that AI or lose search illustrates the problem when a single company is a monopoly over the applications, tools, and email that school districts use. It was a mistake for school districts to turn over e and start everything using Google as a district-wide tool. Now the costs are really great if a district wants to pull the plug and Google the Monopolist knows this, so it can mistreat its customers in any fashion it desires. What will they force down the throats of schools next?

Any school district considering a move to Google and its products should probably put that on hold and think about what power they are handing over to that company. 

On the other hand, taking away Google Search if a district turns off their AI services, might not be that much of a loss. Google Search in recent times is often unreliable and you really spend more time sorting through their "sponsored garbage" than one should have to. So, it might be worth thinking about switching to another search alternative anyway. There are other options out there for students to use.

At the end of the day, when a company like Google has too much power it is really our fault for granting that to them. Schools should learn the lessons here. 

When you turn any massive amount digital tasks over to a company, think hard about the power over you and your district you are handing over. 

Increasingly, it seems we can't trust Big Tech companies. Google certainly wiped from their mind the notion "Don't be evil" on this one. 

Let's Remove Screens from the Center of the Classrooms and Turn Back Teaching and Learning

What to do with devices in schools is the question behind screen limits and screen bans. 

The issue with current devices lies in their engineering; they are designed for productivity and doing worthwhile things, but they are also designed to distract, to addict, to capture attention, especially some of the applications on them.

I think everyone can agree there is no magic in the devices. Just getting them into the hands of children will not cause wonderful teaching and learning.

Way back in 2015, Kentaro Toyama wrote in his book “Geek Heresy,”:

“What happens when children are left to learn on their own with digital gadgets, as so many tech evangelists insist we should do? Here technology amplifies children’s propensities. To be sure, children have a natural desire to learn and play and grow. But they also have a natural desire to distract themselves in less productive ways. Digital technology amplifies both of these appetites. The balance between them differs from child to child, but on the whole, distraction seems to win out when there’s no adult guidance."

This seems to support what many in Ed Tech still say, that is, that the technology is a “teacher-guidance problem” and not a screen availability problem. In other words, if teachers would just do their jobs and keep students focused on production and not distraction, that would produce miracles of achievement from the technology.

But the situation is much more complex when you understand that these devices are engineered for distraction, addiction, and attention capture as well, providing still another force teachers have to battle when it comes to making these technologies work. If students have the choice to use the device for learning and use it for entertainment, they are going to choose entertainment. If the device is engineered to constantly distract and capture one’s attention, then combine both of these, and you have a powerful force built in the device, and for some, this force is much more powerful than any redirection force the teacher applies.

So, what do we do with the devices in schools? I can understand the inclination to ban and limit them. However, I suggest a much simpler approach: de-center devices in the school and in teaching and learning. Instead of designing the classroom around devices; go back to redesigning it around teaching, learning and the people in the classroom. Then devices become the tool sitting at the side of the room to be used when needed not central to the education process. 

In the 1990s and 2000s I recall we were in awe of how strongly our students took to these devices. We were amazed at their intense attention to the tasks we asked them to do on them. We thought, “Let’s redesign teaching and learning and our classrooms around these amazing teaching and learning technologies.” We built student computer labs, moved to one-to-one because of this promise. Never mind that these devices were engineered for other purposes.

But the devices and their applications of the 1990s and 2000s were less engineered for distraction, attention-capture, and addiction. The goals of their makers were different. Today’s devices, powered by attention-capture algorithms and purposeful engineering to keep the user engaged are quite different. They are powered by a different purpose than the earlier devices.

If we “decenter the technologies” we are in effect rethinking where they fit in, and acknowledging that sometimes they do not. We also acknowledge that there is no magical property in these devices that’s going to make learning finally happen. There are simply tools.

Today, we are making the same mistake with LLMs and generative AI. There is a rush to place it at the center of what we do as teachers and educators. Let’s be clear, these technologies are designed for purposes other than teaching and learning. They will not perform miracles. Like devices, we need to learn to keep this technology de-centered and placed on the side of the classroom with other technological tools.

Knowing and understanding technologies means also understanding that most of them are engineered for purposes other than what we do as teachers.To try to build classrooms around them is misguided.